Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Community Meta
Forum Feedback & Support
Forum Rules Feedback Thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Num7" data-source="post: 103548" data-attributes="member: 1"><p>I rephrased parts of the <strong>Regular Discussion</strong> rule so that it's more spot on.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Just like you said, heavy debunking is the primary thing those updated rules aim to get us rid of. Stating that you do no agree with something, or think that something isn't paranormal, for instance, is not debunking. We're still all free to share our opinions in respectful and constructive ways. I'm aware that "<em>debunking</em>" can be pretty large and the line between debunking and not-debunking can be pretty thin sometimes...</p><p></p><p>Saying "<em>Hey, I think this ghost girl in that video is fake, it's not paranormal! </em>" is not debunking, it's sharing your opinion. Same thing if you say: "<em>Hmm... I don't think this time travel medallion is legit, because no one would sell a time travel medallion for $10, right?</em>"</p><p></p><p>On the other hand, saying "<em>Anyone who considers buying a time travel medallion for $10 is lacking common sense and shouldn't be allowed to have an Internet connection for the world's well being</em>" is downright rude and doesn't encourage discussion. Is it debunking? Maybe, maybe not, but <u>it's rude</u> and therefore isn't allowed.</p><p></p><p>Now, repeatedly tearing apart the HDR and saying it's a piece of crap used by half-brained people for X and Y reasons is debunking. The same goes for arguing and repeatedly stating that John Titor is a cheap hoax followed by people with no life who constantly live in their heads. Debunking is destructive and encourages <u>one sided conversations</u> that are not respectful and have <u>no consideration for any other lines of thought</u>. And yes, <u>it's rude</u>.</p><p></p><p>You are welcome to reply to a thread and share your thoughts no matter if you agree or not with the original poster. We just have to disagree in a respectful and constructive way, like we usually do here. It's fine that way.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Num7, post: 103548, member: 1"] I rephrased parts of the [B]Regular Discussion[/B] rule so that it's more spot on. Just like you said, heavy debunking is the primary thing those updated rules aim to get us rid of. Stating that you do no agree with something, or think that something isn't paranormal, for instance, is not debunking. We're still all free to share our opinions in respectful and constructive ways. I'm aware that "[I]debunking[/I]" can be pretty large and the line between debunking and not-debunking can be pretty thin sometimes... Saying "[I]Hey, I think this ghost girl in that video is fake, it's not paranormal! [/I]" is not debunking, it's sharing your opinion. Same thing if you say: "[I]Hmm... I don't think this time travel medallion is legit, because no one would sell a time travel medallion for $10, right?[/I]" On the other hand, saying "[I]Anyone who considers buying a time travel medallion for $10 is lacking common sense and shouldn't be allowed to have an Internet connection for the world's well being[/I]" is downright rude and doesn't encourage discussion. Is it debunking? Maybe, maybe not, but [U]it's rude[/U] and therefore isn't allowed. Now, repeatedly tearing apart the HDR and saying it's a piece of crap used by half-brained people for X and Y reasons is debunking. The same goes for arguing and repeatedly stating that John Titor is a cheap hoax followed by people with no life who constantly live in their heads. Debunking is destructive and encourages [U]one sided conversations[/U] that are not respectful and have [U]no consideration for any other lines of thought[/U]. And yes, [U]it's rude[/U]. You are welcome to reply to a thread and share your thoughts no matter if you agree or not with the original poster. We just have to disagree in a respectful and constructive way, like we usually do here. It's fine that way. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Community Meta
Forum Feedback & Support
Forum Rules Feedback Thread
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top